Chris | InformationLiberationA Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy smelled what he thought was the scent of a meth lab coming from 80-year-old Eugene Mallory's home in Littlerock. The deputy's subjective olfactory sensations were apparently enough "probable cause" for a judge to sign off on a warrant to raid the elderly man's home. When deputies raided his house, they claim he pulled a gun on them, so they shot and killed him immediately.

“Age does not preclude somebody from being aggressive toward deputies,” Whitmore said, acknowledging they shot an elderly person.

“The lesson here, and obviously, forgive me for stating the obvious, is that; don’t pull a gun on a deputy.”

In other words, we can pull guns on you and invade your home because we smell something fishy, but if you pull a gun on us as we invade your home armed to the teeth we can kill you without batting an eyelid.

After murdering the man for attempting to defend himself, the police searched his home and found no evidence of any meth operation, but they did find some marijuana in another part of his property inhabited by his wife's son.

When confronted on the lack of any meth operation, Whitmore acknowledged none was found, but responded, "No, but I believe marijuana was [found], and marijuana equipment was [found], and so there was a 'drug operation' that certainly was going on within this house."

And yes, he emphasizes "drug operation" as though it's in quotes, consciously acknowledging he's is a bald faced liar.

this is about the out of control demanding the right to totally control others with lies and and various other threats all the way to execution on the spot as the penalty for any immediate non-compliance.

No, it's "bald faced". I like the claim from the author that he can read the spokesperson's mind. "Consciously acknowledging" blah blah. You lose credibility with statements like that and phrases like "probably cause". It's "probable".

Bold faced and bald faced are both correct, as to "probably" thank you for catching the typo, it has been corrected. I feel his emphasis on "drug operation" was to imply it was a drug operation "of sorts," even if not a meth operation. He was stretching the truth, which in my book is a flat out lying.

It could be argued that you are reading into his choice of words, or perhaps his inflection, and drawing the conclusion that he is lying based on your own prejudices. It would appear that you are allowing your personal feelings toward law enforcement officialsto colour your writing. Something that a journalist should try to avoid.

Of course it colors my writing, everyone's views color their writings, that includes drab state-stenographers who "only report the facts" and print politicos' bald faced lies without any counterpoints.

Truth is my opinion on law enforcement actually allows me to see these situations more clearly than most, most people think having a badge and gun means you're in the right, no matter what you do. It takes a more rational mind to strip the people of their costumes and judge their actions on their own merit.

In this case, for example, the state goon-squad invaded an innocent man's home and murdered him for posturing in self-defense, they then justified their murder by claiming self-defense besides being the aggressors, and said because they found some vegetation politicians 90 years ago deemed "illegal" their murder was justified, despite their original intention being to bust someone for producing chemicals other politicians deemed illegal.

To wage an armed invasion of someone's home because you thought you smelled them making chemicals, then murder them for trying to defend themselves, and justify the murder by claiming self-defense and saying you were in the right because you found some pot in his son's room and that proves you right is what destroys your credibility -- Not pointing out said homicidal maniacs are in fact homicidal maniacs.

You have admitted to, and demonstrated, great bias in your writing. While you keep returning to this story in an attempt to justify calling people you don't know and have never met homicidal maniacs and liars, I am only criticizing your presentation of a biased opinion as fact. Just like you, I was not present at the scene and do not know the reality of the sequence of events. It is very likely that an alternative to shooting the man could have been attempted. However, as I said, I have no idea what exactly went on in that home, so I simply don't know what was, or was not, justified in this situation. Therefore, I would not be right to draw conclusions about what happened based solely on a press conference speech and the vocal inflections of the speaker, just as you are not right to do so.

A couple of quick points in response to your last post:

- Calling police officers a "goon squad" only weakens your point and presents further evidence that you are not an impartial journalist
- I am not sure it's fair to say that they (the police) are saying killing the man was justified because they found marijuana. It is far more accurate to say they are saying that shooting him was justifiable because he presented them with a mortal threat (a firearm). It seems to me that they are saying the drug raid, not the fatal shooting, was justifiable because of the marijuana.

To call this site a "news" source is inaccurate, as you are presenting a biased point of view and presenting your opinions (the speaker is a liar; these police officers are homicidal maniacs) as facts. These are not facts, these are your opinions. Perhaps you should call your site "Information Liberation: Here's my opinion about this news story".

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.